Using Risk Models to Make Lung Cancer Screening Decisions: Evidence-Based and Getting Better

2019 ◽  
Vol 171 (9) ◽  
pp. 669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanner J. Caverly ◽  
Rafael Meza
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Risk Models

Abstract A110: Could use of individualized risk models mitigate health disparities in eligibility for lung cancer screening?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hormuzd Katki ◽  
Martin Skarzynski ◽  
Li Cheung ◽  
Christine Berg ◽  
Anil Chaturvedi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Health Disparities ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Risk Models

Lung Cancer Screening, Cancer Treatment, and Addressing the Continuum of Health Risks Caused by Tobacco

2016 ◽  
pp. 223-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham W. Warren ◽  
Jamie S. Ostroff ◽  
John R. Goffin
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Tobacco Use ◽  
Health Risks ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Preventable Risk Factor

Tobacco use is the largest preventable risk factor for the development of several cancers, and continued tobacco use by patients with cancer and survivors of cancer causes adverse outcomes. Worldwide tobacco control efforts have reduced tobacco use and improved health outcomes in many countries, but several countries continue to suffer from increased tobacco use and associated adverse health effects. Continued tobacco use by patients undergoing cancer screening or treatment results in continued risk for cancer-related and noncancer-related health conditions. Although integrating tobacco assessment and cessation support into lung cancer screening and cancer care is well justified and feasible, most patients with cancer unfortunately do not receive evidence-based tobacco cessation support. Combining evidence-based methods of treating tobacco addiction, such as behavioral counseling and pharmacotherapy, with practical clinical considerations in the setting of lung cancer screening and cancer treatment should result in substantial improvements in access to evidence-based care and resultant improvements in health risks and cancer treatment outcomes.

scholarly journals Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening

JAMA ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 315 (21) ◽  
pp. 2300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hormuzd A. Katki ◽  
Stephanie A. Kovalchik ◽  
Christine D. Berg ◽  
Li C. Cheung ◽  
Anil K. Chaturvedi
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Risk Models ◽  
Development And Validation

scholarly journals Low Provider Knowledge Is Associated With Less Evidence-Based Lung Cancer Screening

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Lewis ◽  
Heidi Chen ◽  
Kathryn E. Weaver ◽  
Lucy B. Spalluto ◽  
Kim L. Sandler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
System Level ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The Past ◽  
High Knowledge ◽  
Provider Knowledge

Background: Despite widespread recommendation and supportive policies, screening with low-dose CT (LDCT) is incompletely implemented in the US healthcare system. Low provider knowledge of the lung cancer screening (LCS) guidelines represents a potential barrier to implementation. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that low provider knowledge of guidelines is associated with less provider-reported screening with LDCT. Patients and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed in a large academic medical center and affiliated Veterans Health Administration in the Mid-South United States that comprises hospital and community-based practices. Participants included general medicine providers and specialists who treat patients aged >50 years. The primary exposure was LCS guideline knowledge (US Preventive Services Task Force/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). High knowledge was defined as identifying 3 major screening eligibility criteria (55 years as initial age of screening eligibility, smoking status as current or former smoker, and smoking history of ≥30 pack-years), and low knowledge was defined as not identifying these 3 criteria. The primary outcome was self-reported LDCT order/referral within the past year, and the secondary outcome was screening chest radiograph. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of screening by knowledge. Results: Of 625 providers recruited, 407 (65%) responded, and 378 (60.5%) were analyzed. Overall, 233 providers (62%) demonstrated low LCS knowledge, and 224 (59%) reported ordering/referring for LDCT. The aOR of ordering/referring LDCT was less among providers with low knowledge (0.41; 95% CI, 0.24–0.71) than among those with high knowledge. More providers with low knowledge reported ordering screening chest radiographs (aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4–5.0) within the past year. Conclusions: Referring provider knowledge of LCS guidelines is low and directly proportional to the ordering rate for LDCT in an at-risk US population. Strategies to advance evidence-based LCS should incorporate provider education and system-level interventions to address gaps in provider knowledge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document